Discussion

• @nytimesbusiness @nytimesbusiness on x

  Fed up with the state of digital advertising, a former ad executive tapped into her law degree and became an antitrust scholar whose work laid the blueprint for a new wave of monopoly lawsuits against Big Tech https://www.nytimes.com/...

• @ashkan Ashkan Karbasfrooshan on x

  Indeed regulators have zero clue, they lack any insights into how these platforms function. Not surprising to see their efforts come into proper view with the help of industry experts https://www.techmeme.com/...

• @lutherlowe Luther Lowe on x

  Great profile of my friend ⁦@DinaSrinivasan⁩. Academia/think tanks are a poor source of ideas for confronting Big Tech antitrust problems compared with folks who've had skin in the game or direct experience building relevant products at scale. https://www.nytimes.com/...

• @annmlipton Ann Lipton on x

  “After leaving the ad world .... she submitted her paper to the websites of about a dozen law reviews. To her surprise, the Berkeley Business Law Journal, ...agreed to publish her work. Ms. Srinivasan said she cried at the news.” https://www.nytimes.com/...

• @fboversight @fboversight on x

  “Regulators are relying on insiders like Dina Srinivasan, who left her digital ad job after concluding that ‘Facebook and Google were going to win and everybody else is going to lose.’” (@DinaSrinivasan) by @daiwaka https://www.nytimes.com/...

• @seemay Seema Chishti on x

  The Antitrust Case Against Big Tech. Ex-insider Dina Srinivasan asks: “Who the heck consents to having a company track them across the internet?” Only “because they had monopoly power to do something that clearly goes against consumer interests.” https://www.nytimes.com/...

• @daiwaka Daisuke Wakabayashi on x

  Until three years ago, Dina Srinivasan was a digital advertising executive. Now, her academic papers about Facebook and Google are helping regulators to pursue antitrust cases against those companies. https://www.nytimes.com/...

• @eff @eff on x

  Facebook claims that this change from Apple will hurt small businesses who benefit from access to targeted advertising services, but Facebook is not telling you the whole story. https://www.eff.org/...

• @charlesarthur Charles Arthur on x

  @stopsatgreen by the way, the EFF doesn't think Facebook is such a knight in shining armour on this. https://www.eff.org/...

• @thisisarp I loathe email on x

  The disturbing part is Zuckerberg & Facebook taking a page out of the GOP's playbook by blatantly lying about their intentions. https://www.eff.org/...

• @eric_seufert Eric Seufert on x

  4/ My sense is that the same consumer logic can be inverted to: if ads go away, I need to pay for content. But as I mention in this article, Apple isnt articulating that outcome or the current tradeoff to consumers with ATT https://mobiledevmemo.com/...

• @tapbot_paul Paul Haddad on x

  Apple: Facebook advertising is out of control and needs to be reigned in. Also Apple: https://twitter.com/...

• @eff @eff on x

  This is just another attempt from Facebook to violate our privacy rights and maintain its anti-competitive digital advertising practices. https://www.eff.org/...

• @aidazzles Aida on x

  When #Facebook is loud to defend something other than itself - look deeper. Facebook has locked businesses into a situation where they're forced to be sneaky & adverse to their own customers. The answer cannot be to defend broken system at the cost of users' privacy and control. …

• @moonalice Roger McNamee on x

  FB has a “Director of Privacy” whose job appears to be a PR function built around gaslighting. https://twitter.com/...

• @hollyvalero Holly Valero on x

  . @Facebook doesn't have any interest in small business. They nixed business verification, ensured pages that don't pay disappear from your feed. Facebook needs the iPhone to work, but the iPhone doesn't need Facebook .. my money is on @Apple. https://www.eff.org/...

• @eric_seufert Eric Seufert on x

  This tweet serves as a good example of why Facebook's messaging in this PR campaign was imprudent: easy to position ATT as, “but its just changing from opt in to opt out!” FB did itself a disservice by focusing on the SMB angle and not consumer access to free content(1/X) https:/…

• @jheydasch Jason Heydasch on x

  It's not like Apple is a noble non-profit or anything — they worked their way into being the privacy co. and it's paid off — but doubling down on this particular argument seems like a really bad move for Facebook, doesn't it? https://www.eff.org/...

• @hypervisible @hypervisible on x

  “... we shouldn't allow companies to violate our fundamental human rights, even if it's better for their bottom line. Stripped of its shiny PR language, that is what Facebook is complaining about.” https://www.eff.org/...

• @jason_kint Jason Kint on x

  Job requirement. Facebook's former chief privacy officer had me to lunch in June 2014 to gaslight me about their Like buttons bait and switch into surveillance tools to sell FB ads. I took them on weeks earlier in WSJ column then @DinaSrinivasan nailed it in her antitrust paper. …

• @jpwp Jim Parsons on x

  #Facebook knows: lying and disinformation WORKS (it's essential to their business) “Facebook's Laughable Campaign Against Apple Is Really Against Users and Small Businesses” | Electronic Frontier Foundation https://www.eff.org/...

• @counternotions Kontra on x

  On privacy: “When a company does the right thing for its users, EFF will stand with it, just as we will come down hard on companies that do the wrong thing. Here, Apple is right and Facebook is wrong.” (Yeah, but what about those small businesses?!) https://www.eff.org/...

• @eff @eff on x

  When a company does the right thing for its users, EFF will stand with it, just as we will come down hard on companies that do the wrong thing. Here, Apple is right and Facebook is wrong. https://www.eff.org/...

• @johnpaczkowski John Paczkowski on x

  Would love to know how Facebook convinced itself this was a good idea https://twitter.com/...

• @counternotions Kontra on x

  'Facebook's Tone-Deaf Attack on Apple' (Yes, but what about the butterfly keyboard, the missing on/off button on AirPods Max, and the 16GB RAM limit on M1 chips?! Apple is no saint.) (Extremism in bothsidesism is no vice at NYTimes.) https://daringfireball.net/...

• @halsinger Hal Singer on x

  Great point by @matthewstoller about antitrust. We can tolerate (barely) the slow-motion progress when harms are overcharges (or underpayments), which can be compensated with interest. But when the harm is an innovation loss, there's no getting it back. https://mattstoller.substa…

• @billyez2 Billy Easley II on x

  Fellow criminal justice policy wonks - what do you think about making it easier to establish personal criminal liability against CEO's and white collar workers? Or pushing agencies to do? Not just talking about Facebook or Google btw https://twitter.com/...

• @benedictevans Benedict Evans on x

  I also read a column by a popular anti-trust polemicist who thinks Sundar Pichai should go to prison for decisions made at Google before he was hired there.

• @gretchenspeters Gretchen Peters on x

  @matthewstoller @jenhollidayesq @matthewstoller another option is going after tech execs like #Zuch, #Pinchai for amplifying and accelerating the opioid crisis (& other crime). They both have blood on their hands due to the way their firms facilitate and profit of fake pharmacies…

• @jason_kint Jason Kint on x

  Where Matt Stoller makes persuasive arguments for why attorney general needs to press charges against Facebook and Google executives for the section one violation in the complaint against Google this week for cartel behaviors damaging publishers/industry. Well worth the read. htt…

• @iwelsh Ian Welsh on x

  This goes very widely for all sorts of elite malfeasance. And especially at corporate execs, who routinely kill and impoverish people, for money, in clear crimes. (Liars loans and robosigning are only two crimes for which execs should have gone to jail or life for.) https://twitt…

• @moonalice Roger McNamee on x

  Terrific profile of the amazing @DinaSrinivasan, whose theories on privacy invasions as harm underlie the DOJ antitrust case against Google and FB. Thank you, @daiwaka https://www.nytimes.com/...

• @matthewstoller Matt Stoller on x

  And in fact, Thurman Arnold, who is widely considered to be the greatest antitrust enforcer in American history, used criminal indictments in the 1930s as a core part of his strategy to end elite lawlessness. https://mattstoller.substack.com/ ...

• @matthewstoller Matt Stoller on x

  The DOJ antitrust division already has a corporate leniency program for those who turn in fellow cartel members. Criminal indictments can in fact stop crime. https://mattstoller.substack.com/ ...

• @matthewstoller Matt Stoller on x

  Facebook and Google think they have employee trouble, but if enforcers threatened to bring criminal charges against those responsible for its various predatory schemes, oh man. Workers would flip on those at the top who gave the orders. https://mattstoller.substack.com/ ...

• @ektrit Kris on x

  Subtitle by @matthewstoller “The Problem of Elite Lawlessness” Obama and Trump, two sides of the same coin. Crime Shouldn't Pay: Why Big Tech Executives Should Face Jail by @matthewstoller https://mattstoller.substack.com/ ...

• @jason_kint Jason Kint on x

  for a company who regularly dismisses the importance of its display advertising biz, it sure was willing to break a lot of antitrust laws... like the state AGs vs Facebook, I'm also thrilled here, this is the exact case I wanted against Google. As promised, Texas had the experts.